Redge was notorious for doing that, based on my investigations on other questionable and old featured articles. However, in this case, I did find the votes for this nomination and had them archived here for posterity, where interestingly he noted: "Though it does still need a lot of references, I'm sure these will be filled in later." Until we can get things cited, I vote to remove it as well. --Alan del Beccio 04:54, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Support, with the suggestion of citing stuff and putting through a peer review as quickly as possibly to get this featured again. --OuroborosCobratalk 05:01, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment: From what I see, it appears many of the uncited references may be based on observational references. We currently have no way to cite such references, unless we simply cite the first episode that particular observation was made in. --Alan del Beccio 05:10, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

That would seem to be a pretty good solution right there... --OuroborosCobratalk 05:14, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Support removal of FA status, would like to see it back to FA soon, perhaps. Mafeu 13:44, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Support for removal of FA status as well. I think it still needs some work for it to be an FA. - Enzo Aquarius 13:46, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

There was a Voyager episode once, in which the warp core was ejected, following warp core breach. However, the core didn't explode, so Voyager went to retrieve it. When they arrived, they found the core gone; it was stolen by some aliens. In the end, they were able to get it back, of course. I don't remember the name of the episode, if anyone does, I can add a reference. Ottens 12:56, 6 Jul 2004 (CEST)

In another Voyager episode (I think "Cathexis"), it is indicated that more than just the Chief Engineer's authorization is needed (B'Elanna ejects the warp core; Janeway states that she would need one of the command codes, leading to the realization that Chakotay was playing a role in the situation); this is inconsistent with the requirements specified in this wiki.. any non-anonymous non-guest want to verify and correct the main page? =) – The preceding unsigned comment was added by173.12.43.145 (talk).

I believe that the established procedure for ejecting the warp core is that 2 senior officers need to provide authorization through the use of their command codes. – The preceding unsigned comment was added by71.13.216.158 (talk).

There's a possible discrepency to that. In 7x24 "Renaissance Man" the Doctor, acting as the ECH, authorized the ejection on his own. However, considering that the ECH conversion was only intended to be invoked if the normal chain of command (senior staff) was incapacitated or killed.....one might also argue that the ECH command codes would by necessity be an exception to the rule. There might not be a truly verifiable answer on this one. Silas9735 05:35, August 30, 2010 (UTC)

Another possible discrepancy to the two command code bit. In episode 5X18 "Course: Oblivion" Seven of Nine ejects the warp core to force the ship to drop to impulse so that they could use their last subspace communications relay. Granted, this wasn't the real ship, and with all but four crew members dead, they would have had to improvise as Harry had to man the bridge, and Neelix was dealing with other problems. Tarinax

Self-nomination. I included information about the class' history, its tactical and defensive systems, and the starship's interior design. I tried to include as many referense as I could remember from the series. Ottens 19:05, 11 Jul 2004 (CEST)

DarkHorizon, I noticed you removed the File:USS Voyager partially assimilated.jpg image from the Intrepid-class page. Whilst that indeed seems logical, I included the image so there would be a view of the Intrepid class starship both from above and from underneath. Would you prefer I'd upload a non-Borgified top-view image of the Intrepid class instead? Ottens 12:31, 5 Sep 2004 (CEST)

Perhaps, besides "Tactical Systems", create a category "Engineering Systems", which would include information about, for example, the Intrepid's warp drive systems, and being one of the first to carry bio-packs instead of isolinear chips... Ottens 13:29, 3 Oct 2004 (CEST)

I know there's information somewhere about how on Voyager, the mess hall actually used to be the Captain's personal dining hall, or something to that effect. If anyone has access to that source information, it would be more appropriate to reference that as it is the original purpose of that room, and not as a mess hall. || THOR 03:45, 5 Mar 2005 (GMT)

Note to Pd THOR... The area which was converted into the kitchen was the Captain's dinning room. If you view the early scenes in the pilot you can see that the wall where Neelix's kitchen would be there are replicators. benjrh 07:02, 30 Jul 2005 (ET)

RE: Thor - I agree. I seem to recall that the original purpose of what became Voyager's mess hall was originally specified as Janeway's personal dining hall. Only after convincing from Neelix did she relinquish it as a mess hall. Therefore, while true that it served as Voyager's mess hall, it's unlikely this was true of any other Intrepid Class starship in service. Of course, the episode containing that info escapes me at the moment, but I'll look for it. DKqwerty 02:17, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm presuming that Voyager isn't the only Intrepid-class to have an Aeroshuttle... shouldn't there be a link to Aeroshuttle on this page too??? I just don't know where to put it! zsingaya 17:33, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Indeed, there should be a link to Aeroshuttle. All Intrepid-class vessels have one. -- Enzo Aquarius 17:18, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

"Holodecks are proprietary Federation technology." I don't think that's accurate, Holodecks appear to be fairly standard 24th century technology in that part of the Galaxy, and some races had them well before that. We've seen the Ferengi Holosuites on DS9, we saw a Romulan Holodeck in The Mind's Eye, Barash in Future Imperfect had what was essentially a holodeck, and even as far back as the first season of Enterprise, Starfleet was running into races that had simple Holodecks (and the technology was at least theoretically given to the Klingons, although they apparently didn't make much use of it, or kept it hidden from the Federation until after the Khitomer Accords). --207.142.131.251 16:07, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm Pretty sure this information is incorrect. I am quite sure that 9.975 is to fast to be actually held as cruising speed. I think it can be held for 24-32 hours, something like that. – The preceding unsigned comment was added by58.107.40.20 (talk).

From the article:

"Maximum Speed: Warp 9.975" and "Nearly 350 meters long, the Intrepid-class is built sleek and long, sporting the fastest top speed on record for a Starfleet vessel until the Sovereign and Prometheus-class cruisers came into service."

However, following the links, i get that the Sovereign class's is somewhere above warp 9 and the Prometheus class reaches warp 9.9, which is even less then then the Intrepid. Unfortunatly, i dont know what of this is wrong, but it would be nice if someone else could get a look on it. -- – The preceding unsigned comment was added by195.158.180.133 (talk).

While the Enterprise was shown going at "maximum warp" on a couple occasions, it was never stated as traveling any faster than Warp 8. Nor was Voyager ever specifically stated as having "the fastest top speed on record". --Alan 22:57, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

What about the Prometheus ? The article only mentiones a "Speed" of 9.9 - if thats the maximal possible speed, Intrepid class vessels could get faster, or does it refer to its cruising speed? --195.158.178.47 15:31, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

While the Prometheus was stated to be traveling at 9.9 in the episode it is also stated that it's the fastest ship in the fleet by the EMH-2. It's is possible that for some unknown reason the Prometheus wasn't travelling at it's top speed. --24.196.45.116 23:17, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

What i have always taken the mention of the Prometheus being the fastest ship in the fleet to mean is that it can sustain a higher speed than any ship before it, maybe it's maximum possible speed is warp 9.9 but it can sustain that indefinitely, or at least much longer than any previous ship. Summerpanda 01:28, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Is 9.975 really the maximum absolute speed? Direct quotes are "sustainable cruise velocity" from "Caretaker" and "top cruising speed" from "Relativity". But isn't "cruising" speed usually the term for the speed a ship can maintain for extended periods of time. Not the absolute max limit when the ship risks structural integrity failure and warp core burn-out etc. --Pseudohuman 07:58, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

There was a note in the article's infobox suggesting that the "maximum warp" often ordered by the captain was in fact is "warp 9". But is there a specific episode where this is established? --Pseudohuman 05:46, August 11, 2010 (UTC)

The official Star Trek website lists the Intrepid-class as having a "sustainable cruise velocity of warp 9.975".[1]– The preceding unsigned comment was added by71.13.216.158 (talk).

Bottom line: Intrepid class starships can go warp 9.975 and can stay that way for a while! --Quinn Friedl 17:13, February 25, 2012 (UTC)

As stated in the "DS9 Technical Manual" the Intrepid class uses Type-VIII phaser arrays, not type-X as stated here. I tried to correct this problem, but Shran, who obviously thinks he knows everything, reverts this page to show the incorrect information. I would suggest to SHran to read the "DS9 technical manual" and then he will see I was correct.

P.S.: Most probably this comment will be removed like everything else I posted/edited to contribute to the correctness of the informations on Memory-Alpha. – The preceding unsigned comment was added by213.202.87.232 (talk).

I believe you are thinking of the Yeager-type vessel, as the Intrepid class doesn't appear in the DS9 tech manual. Also, the yeager type already lists that information. Also, in an episodoe of voyager, it is said that Voyager has type 10 phasers, which would even then over-rule the book. - AJHalliwell 10:03, 30 Jul 2005 (UTC)

Would you please state in which episode? I believe it is never mentioned in any episode or movie, but is mentioned in the "Voyager technical manual", and my fault is that I stated the wrong for reference. I will not contribute to Memory-Alpha anymore, as I can see that my help is unappreciated and unwelcome. – The preceding unsigned comment was added by213.202.87.232 (talk).

Your help is very appreciated and welcome, just be sure to try to get your facts straight. We tend to be very strict about canon here. For example, there is not Voyager technical manual. - AJHalliwell 10:46, 30 Jul 2005 (UTC)

Technical manuals are not considered canon, anyway, and therefore cannot be used when putting info into articles. --Shran 21:43, 30 Jul 2005 (UTC)

You can use info from a manual, as long as you say the info might not be canon. Tough Little Ship 21:47, 30 Jul 2005 (UTC)

I personally don't know which episode it was mentioned in, but if A.J. said it was mentioned in an episode, you can bet that it was. He could be researching to find out which episode it was, so just have patience until he replies back with the episode. --Shran 00:22, 31 Jul 2005 (UTC)

If you have a vgue idea such as what happened in the episode of what season i could check it out for you -- Kahless 00:34, 31 Jul 2005 (UTC)

Your confidence is appreciated, I hope to fulfill it. I am looking for it, but the site I like to use to look up my Voyager things is having some Internet troubles it seems ("Janet's Star Trek Voyager Site") But to take a shot in the dark, I'm gonna say when Dala showed the alien a schematic of Voyager's weapons in "Live Fast and Prosper", but don't count on this (I'm looking...) Also, that eBay link, if it's never been released to the public, it's LESS then apocrypha. I'm not even inclined to believe that's authentic, anyone can download the Star Trek font off the Internet and type "by Rick Sternbach and Mike Okuda", "making it canon". But it might be, I dunno (written by them, certainly not official canon) Nice, none the less. - AJHalliwell 03:10, 31 Jul 2005 (UTC)

"optronically targeted phasers" is the only thing they say about the phasers. I don't remember that episode clearly enough to see what was showed on the schematics. I will be glad if you find that reference as it could be useful to me and the Croatian Star Trek Center, where we are discussing Voyagers weapons in over 700 posts.

I see noone wants to really find a legitimate source for this... – The preceding unsigned comment was added by213.202.96.179 (talk).

Bringing this up again. We need to cite this, or lose it. --OuroborosCobratalk 19:11, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I never heard from phaser class in the episodes, but you all think this lil ship can produce the beam-firepower of the large Galaxy? (If yes, than UFP dont need anything other than intrepids in battles. 10 intrepid can produce 10 Galaxy firepower, and they are more agile than the Galaxy class...)

I'm a little curious about the fifth torpedo launcher mentioned in this article. Clearly there are two forward above the deflector dish, and two aft on the spine, but where does this fifth come from. The article identifies it as on the base of the engineering hull, under the deflector dish, leading me to suspect you mean the little piece hanging down below the deflector dish. Aside from the fact that there is no visible launch tube here, I have at no time during the series seen torpedoes launched from this point. If anyone has an explanation and can justify its listing here, I would be most interested in hearing it. – The preceding unsigned comment was added by142.104.250.115 (talk).

The fifth torpedo tube is an interesting issue, you can see it being launched here: [2]. There are various utilities under the ship, however, none of which appear to be torpedo tubes but rather Engineering utilities (Warp Core hatch, possible connections for restock, etc.). Even though no torpedo launchers are shown, one was launched from a 'mystical' 5th tube, so thus there is technically 5 tubes. - Adm. Enzo Aquarius 21:25, 14 Sep 2005 (UTC)

That's definitely interesting, but taking this as canon makes me wonder about something else. Should we list the Galaxy class as having thirteen phaser arrays, considering the mystical phaser beams erupting from the forward torpedo launcher on the stardrive in Darmok.HaganeNoKokoro 19:45, 17 Sep 2005 (UTC)

That link is now invalid, could someone provide me with a replacement, I would like to see that 5th launcher 65.103.110.75 23:32, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

It's official. Intrepid does have a ventral fifth torpedo launcher in the very center belly of the ship. Here is a series of images depicting the firing from "Resolutions" to solve the issue for everyone. [3] --88.193.179.205 13:01, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

That "5th tube" is likely be a VFX error, since it is located where the aft tractor emitter is, and that it only fired in one episode. TNG made this mistake a couple times with having a phaser come from the forward torpedo tube.--70.176.184.44 07:11, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I wrongly cited that ALL Intrepid-class starships were compatible with Transphasic Torpedoes. However, I was wrong. Only one ship does not change a complete class of starships. It's only Voyager because Vice Admiral Janeway knew to install the weaponry and armor.--74.95.196.114 21:07, December 10, 2009 (UTC)

According to this site, special effects has put a sixth launcher on the ship. Between the two proper launchers, but not coming from either of them. – Fadm tyler 20:39, January 29, 2010 (UTC)

Does anyone know what episode that "sixth" torpedo tube is from... There might be precedence of effects that originate extremely near a proper weapon port, that we discount them as an error, but it would still be great to mention the anomaly on the page. IMO --Pseudohuman 02:21, January 30, 2010 (UTC)

I'm curious where these dimensions for the Intrepid class came from, and whether or not they are cannon given that the width listed is opposed to the one on screen mention I am familiar with. Specifically in "Parallax" when Voyager needs to escape a quantum singularity, the hole through which they need to escape is said to be 120m wide, to which Lt. Paris comments that this gives them less than two meters clearance on either side. This suggests an overall width of about 117m, less than the 133m listed here. While I have no doubt that the ratios listed are correct, I'm wondering if the values were determined by comparison of the pictures that were at the end of the Star Trek Encylcopedia, many of which (such as the Klingon Battlecruiser) were not shown to proper scale.HaganeNoKokoro 19:57, 17 Sep 2005 (UTC)

that is why we in ma/de list this ship as ~300m long. 350 Meters are not canon. link --ShismaBitte korrigiert mich 10:31, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

It has a width of 116m as said in the episode Parrallax --Judgeking 16:44, 20 December 2007

I reverted most of the edit made by an unregistered contributor. I'll explain every single change I made below. Please refrain from reverting these changes if there's any dispute until the matter has been resolved. Thank you.

I put the side-view of the Intrepid class vessel on top. Makes more sense to me to have the bottom view at the bottom of the sidebar.

I removed the image of the warp core ejection from the page. The image is already on the Warp core ejection system article, to which this article links. Besides, the image only unnecessarily takes up space here.

I italicized the additional referenced to Intrepid class under "Transporter systems". Before adding new information to an article, please briefly check the already applies style.

I moved the text about the "Transporter systems" further down. This section hardly falls under "Crew support systems", and probably deserves a section of its own rather than being a mere subcategory of the former. Furthermore, I removed the transporter room image, because I think the lack of information about the Intrepid class' transporter room on this article hardly justifies an image being placed alongside with it.

Besides, I moved the detailed image of the saucer section down to the "Background information" section, as the image more suits the text there.

Other featured ship class articles include images of their main systems like transporters too, see Galaxy-class for example (and corridor shots also). And there's no reason to remove the landing procedure images, that's a really important feature. And you should use the standard thumb size of 180px like all other FAs (that's the minimum, 200px is "normal"). --Porthos 22:11, 28 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Yes, but the Galaxy class article, for examples, includes a little more information on its transporter systems than "The transporter rooms are located on Deck #," since basically that's all there is about Transporter systems on the Intrepid class article right now, along with the notation that in emergencies, people can be transported directly to sickbay, but that's standard practice on all Starfleet vessels.

There is no "minimum" thumb size, unless I missed a new rule being added, and in that case I offer my apoligies. Sometimes, I prefer to keep thumbs 10 or 20 pixels lower than 180px width, and that's only because they integrate in the text better than. So unless there really is something like a "minimum" thumb size..? Ottens 08:24, 29 Sep 2005 (UTC)

There should be an image size policy, the pics in this article are too small, especially the one of the mess hall. --Memory 22:11, 29 Sep 2005 (UTC)

I think the standard thumb size as generated by the system when nothing else is specified is as good as it gets. Whether you make it bigger or smaller, someone will complain. Also, the images are just there to illustrate. If someone wants to see all the details, he/she can always click on the image... (Clarification: Was written while Memory changed the image size. I prefer the way it is now, without any sizes specified.) -- Cid Highwind 22:27, 29 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Memory, there is no policy on image size. You claim some images are too small? I'm using 1280 by 1024 resolution, and the images looks perfectly thumbed to me. As Cid said, if people want to see more detail on an image, they can click on it to see the full view. When an image is thumbed 180px width instead of 160px, there truly isn't way more detail than on the latter. Large images take up too much small on small screens (there are still people who use a 800 by 600 resolution!), and in this specific case, it looks mostly better when the images are a little smaller than 180px width. Ottens 13:56, 30 Sep 2005 (UTC)

It doesn't look better because number one rule of wiki layout for thumbs is: the image has to be bigger than it's description, a rule that you often disregard. And we don't optimize for 800*600 like all other websites too. --Memory 18:16, 30 Sep 2005 (UTC)

The reason the descriptions underneath the thumbs are usually more width than the thumb itself when I edit them is because I believe that these descriptions actually serve a use. For example, the description underneath the mess hall thumb could be "The mess hall." If that were so, than according to you the image may be thumbed smaller? Fine. I, however, tend to give a little more information on thumbs. Take the image of the shuttlebay for example, underneath which can be read: "Shuttlebay of the Intrepid class starship with the aft crew's lounge underneath it." Now, I could just have written "Shuttlebay" there, but I think that kinda amateurish. Of course, that's just my opinion.

I'm sure you wouldn't mind directing me to wherever it is written in the rules that "the image has to be bigger than it's description". Frankly, I never read that somewhere. If it's in Memory Alpha's rules, than I apologize and will probably put that particular rule at debate, since I think it's ridiculous.

Furthermore, that we do not optimize for 800 by 600 resolutions doesn't mean we can completely ignore it. When using 1024x768 or higher, it really doesn't matter such whether an image is 160 or 180 px width. Using 800x600, however, it can make quite a difference, also because MA doesn't use the whole width of the screen...

Finally, I would want to ask you that if you come across something on an article that you do not agree with, style-wise, then start a discussion on the article's talk page first, before making drastic edits to the article. Thank you very much. Ottens 21:39, 30 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Protected on the request of OuroborosCobra because of repeated addition of unsourced figures by both un-registered and newly-registered members; edit war like behaviour.
The page is quite big and during an edit war every version is saved. Discuss the following claims:

crew size is 200 (instead of 150 as I do remember and was in article before),

As it is now the number of ships that would have the capability to land on a planet is described as follows, "Being one of the few Starfleet starship classes capable of atmospheric entry and planetary landing, .." I do not agree with this because this would make the suggestion that there are more ship classes who would be able to land. (keep in mind we are talking about ship classes not the ships within a class) I have changed this to, "Being the only known Starfleet starship class capable of atmospheric entry and planetary landing, ..." as this better describes that Voyager was the only ship seen on screen landing on a planet but there might be more classes. My change was reverted on the account that is was based on speculation but what about the speculation that there are more ship classes that can land on a planet, is that not a very big speculation ? Although, we the readers should be viewed as all knowing within the ST universe I do not think that assuming that there are more ship classes that can land on a planet is correct. There is simply no canon info to support that and to me it seems strang to invent ship classes, unknown by us readers, that can land other then the canon ones. -- Q 20:27, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

No, no one can tell for 100%, the oposite is also true. I am not disputing that there migt be more, but the way it is described. I find "one of the few" misleading, where are the few, better still who are they, I, the reader wants to know. To me with "the only known" tells me that this is the only known so why bother to look for more ? Yes, I know, nitpicking but that's me. I found is a strange sentence, unclear to me anyway, that's why I've changed it. -- Q 21:14, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I think it's also safe to say that the Danube-class would have the capability of landing on a planet. Yes, the runabouts are in a class of their own. If anyone knows an episode of DS9 where one actually lands please, inform us. wonderboy 3.25.2010

Is there any information on what reason the class was created? What tactical function they were supposed to use? The Defiant class was created to fight the Borg, Sovereign class combined Galaxy class "comforts" with extreme power, Prometheus as a state of the art warship, Intrepid was created for .... 123.243.33.118 15:43, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Any info on why voyager does this? Its mentioned in the article that it does it, but not why. Always hated this concept. If it needs to be folded when the ship goes to warp, why not always have them folded? Less moving parts=less that can go wrong.--69.106.227.68 03:56, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I think this section should probably be removed. Seriously. Some might start posting these on every ship page and I don't think we need a bunch of references to books and games for each ship. If we limit it to those games/books where the ship class was the star then I don't see a problem. However, Armada II and Bridge Commander both don't really focus on the Intrepid they're just there. – Morder 20:15, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Removed Bridge Commander reference from the Apocryphal Appearances Since it only appears In a Mod form and Not In the Game itself – Archer02 22:07, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

A dedicated count of the hull indicates the presence of fifteen phaser arrays on the Intrepid-class rather than the thirteen featured in this article.

On-screen, the Intrepid-class phasers never appear to pack the wallop of those fired by the USS Enterprise-D throughout Star Trek: The Next Generation which carries Type 10 phaser arrays. Some fans have speculated that perhaps the Intrepid Class' phaser arrays are not Type 10. Actually, the maximum output of a Type 10 array depends on the total number of emitter segments in the array. The final beam output is a combination of all the emitter segments working in concert (this is why we see a glow start at each edge of the array converging at the emission point prior to firing). Voyager's phasers are, in fact, Type 10, but the arrays have fewer emitter segments owing to Voyager's smaller hull. (And Galaxy-class can produce more power, to feed the many emitters)

I felt that I should add it here, so that it's not lost. Please note that large text removals should be put onto the talk page to preserve them. -- Sulfur 18:38, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I always liked this text, and I'm going to put it back if nobody minds. It seems accurate enough, and explains things I was always curious about. Trainik 16:44, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind. I checked the IP address who removed the stuff, and he/she commented that the stuff was just assumptions. I don't know otherwise, so I'll take it off again. Sorry. Trainik 16:48, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

The main shuttlebay was managed by a team of pilots, engineers technicians, and operations personnel that were based on the flight operations office under the supervision of the flight control officer.

Removed since it's been needing a cite for a long as I can remember. - Archduk3 20:21, March 12, 2010 (UTC)

I only see 13 arrays on the ship itself, I guess the people saying that there are 15 are either counting VFX errors (phasers coming from torpedo launchers, random spots on the hull, etc.), are counting one of the port or starboard sensor arrays on the secondary hull, or just don't know how to count. – The preceding unsigned comment was added by70.176.184.44 (talk). 02:21, June 5, 2009 02:21 GMT

It could also be stated in an episode somewhere, possibly "Live Fast and Prosper". I'll have to check though. — Morder 09:26, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Not in that episode, though a lot of tactical information was stated. — Morder 10:03, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

There are only 13 phasers on the Intrepid model (studio and CGI). Some people count sensor arrays and VFX errors and come up with 15, but there's only 13.--70.176.184.44 07:13, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Should 15 be changed to 13 in the sidebar? – Fadm tyler 21:54, December 7, 2009 (UTC)

How many phaser arrays are on the Intrepid-class? Phaser array currently says 13: 2+2+2+2+5. Intrepid-class, which was recently changed, says 14, and I count 4+2+2+2+4. I am completely unsure if I'm counting correctly and of course if those strips are in the places claimed. Setacourse 00:39, December 25, 2009 (UTC)

Okay, so the ship has 13 of these main phaser array strips that are clearly arrays. Then there are the aft torpedo launchers that have emitters as seen in "Dragon's Teeth" . We have embedded emitters on the bottom of the nacelles seen firing in "Unimatrix Zero" and the central aft emitter in the bottom of the hull seen fired in "Think Tank" and the strip behind and between the bridge module and the sensor pallet that looks like a cross between a phaser array and a transporter array is a phaser array strip (see close-ups here [4]) as phaser fire was seen coming from it in "Resolutions". So that would make it 14 arrays and 5 emitters total assuming both sides have banks in the same places.

Also to people saying these are VFX error need to understand that unless there is a bg source stating something was an error it is not an error. It is just an error as a "fan opinion". Just look at how much detail has been put into the phase cannon article and that is considered a Featured article in MA. --Pseudohuman 08:03, January 16, 2010 (UTC)

You are talking about VFX errors. The team that did Voyager (writers/VFX guys) were kind of lax on continuity. Even if they weren't, people do screw up look at TNG (phaser that came out of the torpedo launcher). It's safe to say if the phaser only appeared in 1 or 2 episodes it's a VFX error. --70.176.184.44 08:50, January 7, 2010 (UTC)

Is there an actual production source saying that it was a VFX error? Or just speculation? Even if the speculation is very likely to be true, it has no place on MA; without concrete proof that it was a VFX error, we must assume that there really was a phaser there. And, hey, who's to say there wouldn't be one there in-universe? For all we know they can stick an extra phaser in there without it being particularly apparent on the exterior. Similar thing with the torpedo tube--if I was designing a ship, I'd say, hey, why not stick an extra phaser in the torpedo tube? I've already got a hole there, after all. :-) -Mdettweiler 20:01, January 7, 2010 (UTC)

And for everyones information, in the Klingon K't'inga-class and in the Romulan D'deridex-class forward torpedo launchers double as disruptor arrays. So it's not as if the Galaxy-class and Intrepid-class are the only shiptypes with torpedo/directed energy weapon combo-banks. --Pseudohuman 20:13, January 7, 2010 (UTC)

I've added a pna-inaccurate notice to the tactical systems section, since instead of discussing it here, for whatever reason, people have just been changing the number of tactical systems back and forth for a couple weeks now. Until some consensus is reached, please hash it out here instead of on the articles page with a long and protracted edit war. Thanks. - Archduk3 01:35, January 17, 2010 (UTC)

Ok. I think there already is a consensus here and we were on the same page with user GREENYA. I fixed some redundand links and readded others, so maybe now we can leave this section behind us, as we agree on the number of phasers. --Pseudohuman 05:15, January 17, 2010 (UTC)

I don't agree with the number of phasers. The article is counting VFX errors. Dragon's Teeth is unreliable, phasers were coming from all over the hull in that episode, and were all one time appearances. Unimatrix Zero is definately unreliable, the phaser comes from a nacelle where no phaser array or bank is visible, only appeared once and is close to where the actual array is, so I think it's safe to say that the VFX people were trying to make the phaser come from the pylon but screwed up. There are THIRTEEN phasers, not 14, 15, 17. Voyager was well known for being lax on continuity, so why are people counting obvious screw ups. --Nero210 06:37, January 17, 2010 (UTC)

For the millionth time: an effect is not a VFX error unless there is a bg source stating it was an error. Read Phase cannon article for the precedence of how closely we examine the visual canon in MA. There is no continuity error when there is no canon statement on the number of phasers. if a continuity error exists only between canon and a bg source, then canon takes precedence. lol --Pseudohuman 08:43, January 17, 2010 (UTC)

On the other hand, if we're using "visual evidence", and phasers are coming from all over the hull throughout the series, then we shouldn't assume that we've definitely seen all possible sources of phaser fire already. The article should then not read "X phaser arrays", but "at least X phaser arrays". Everything else is just different speculation. -- Cid Highwind 12:26, January 17, 2010 (UTC)

It IS an effect error, the phasers only show up in ONE episode and are never seen or heard from again, from points on the hull that obviously do NOT have phaser arrays. Use common sense, Voyager screwed up on continuity A LOT, towards the end it was almost as bad as Enterprise with canon ("faster than light, no left or right" is a prime example). The fifth torpedo tube is another screw up, only one episode and the torpedo fired from the aft tractor emitter. --Nero210 17:57, January 17, 2010 (UTC)

As has been stated over and over, we can't assume it's an effects error unless there is a definitive background source stating it is. Keep in mind that just because you personally don't agree with what's seen on screen doesn't make it non-canon by Memory Alpha's definition (namely, whatever's seen on screen rolls). And besides, who says a phaser array/emitter even has to necessarily look like a phaser array? Sure, they've got the big phaser strips that we can see easily on the model, but how do we know they don't have other smaller single-point (i.e. not a big strip) emitters on various other points of the ship that aren't visible at the distances we're seeing the ship from? My point is, it's not logically sustainable to have a wiki where we base our 'facts' on subjective determinations of what's "real" and what isn't. The only way to avoid this is to assume that everything seen on screen really did "happen" exactly as shown. A great example of this is the Klingon TOS forehead problem. For years that had no explanation in canon--so we had to assume that there must have been an explanation in-universe for it. This is hardly a long shot--after all, there's a whole heck of a lot that goes on in the Star Trek universe that we obviously haven't had covered in televised footage, and we can't do more than speculate about how it played out. Of course, in this case the problem was later resolved in Enterprise, giving us a glimpse into some of those events we previously knew nothing about, but "happened" and fit into the Star Trek universe just the same. That's the nature of a largely continuitous storyline like this. -Mdettweiler 19:26, January 17, 2010 (UTC)

My dissatisfaction with memory alpha grows stronger. By your logic ships can maneuver at warp but "faster than light, no left or right" is still valid. Be smarter than the show. --Nero210 00:56, January 18, 2010 (UTC)

As we deal in canon, it is not up to us to "be smarter than the show" and decide things just because they make sense. We have to go with what was presented in the show and any evidence from the crew.--31dot 01:08, January 18, 2010 (UTC)

The article itself should mention every spot that a phaser was seen firing from, and let the reader draw their own conclusions, since we aren't in the business of forcing people to be smarter at all. That said, I wouldn't be opposed to a noting this disagreement in the bg section, much like the Chakotay article does on his rank, assuming that a way to word it could be found. Either way, as it stands there are at least 13 arrays, which is a nice way to word that if we want to fit it into the already cramped tactical section of the sidebar, and as Cid said, since we can all agree that there were at least 13, lets use that; or just blank that section of the sidebar all together since the article itself is the better place to present this information first, especially since it's contested. - Archduk3 06:07, January 18, 2010 (UTC)

I can live with the at least 13 statement and putting the VFX errors in the background section (don't "correct" me and say that there's no evidence that they're errors, I strongly believe they are so leave it alone). Another thing we could do is do a side note in the tactical section that says something about additional phasers coming from other points on the hull in a few episodes, but never being seen again and POSSIBLY VFX errors. --Nero210 06:10, January 18, 2010 (UTC)

Well this isn't the only article to eximine vfx closely to determine the armament of a ship class dispite the model makers intentions, similar cases are the Defiant-classphaser emitters, the Phase cannon page on the NX-class armament, Excelsior-class page where we list all the phasers coming from all over the hull from the impulse engines and warp nacelle connectors etc. Same is with the D'deridex-class weapons arrays that shoot from locations where there are no emitters on the hull and where there wasn't intended to be arrays by the model designer. The list just goes on and on.

I suppose we need to make a decision that a: memory alpha only accepts effects that are compatible with the model designers intentions and start rewriting a shitload of articles, or b: we accept visual canon as it is. --Pseudohuman 08:06, January 18, 2010 (UTC)

Or we can go with Archduk's idea and put that the Intrepid has at least 13 phasers in the article and make a note of possible other phasers in the background section. That sounds like a reasonable compromise to me. --Nero210 19:15, January 18, 2010 (UTC)

That would mean changing all article segments regarding ship weaponry to weapons only worth mentioning in the bgsection, all over MA, when a beam or torpedo is launched from a location not designed to be an emitter or a torpedo tube by the model designer. This would then be the "model-makers intent" rule? that should be added to the MA policy page, if we go with it. --Pseudohuman 21:00, January 18, 2010 (UTC)

Hold on - my suggestion was not to use the phrase "at least" as a way to get away with moving some definitely seen phaser sources to the background section. If fifteen have been seen, and there is no definite proof for one or more of them being production errors, then all should be accounted for in the "official" number we state - or we shouldn't state any number at all. -- Cid Highwind 21:00, January 18, 2010 (UTC)

There seems to be some confusion about what I was suggesting (based on Cid's comment, which maybe I was confused about), so let me clarify. The 'at least' was to be used in the sidebar only, as the article proper should still mention every location seen. A bg note could be added to explain only that there is a disagreement about the number, and not to be used as a way to remove the disputed locations, as until proven otherwise they are canon, for better or worse. - Archduk3 21:10, January 18, 2010 (UTC)

Canon is everything what is visible on screen. On screen are visible 14 phaser array and at least 4 separete phaser banks.--Greeneya 23:05, January 18, 2010 (UTC)

Re:Archduk3 - my intention was to state that we should use "at least" in every case where the number hasn't been explicitely stated by one of the characters, but where we derived at that number by counting. Who is to say there couldn't be 16, 20, or 247 phaser emitters somewhere on the hull? We saw 13, 14 or 15 (depending on other definitions, apparently) but in any case, we can't be sure that we've seen all. Then again, if we can't really be sure about the "true" number of emitters, maybe we shouldn't give any number. -- Cid Highwind 16:31, January 19, 2010 (UTC)

I think we should say "at least" 15 (or whatever the maximum number is that we've seen on screen--that is, counting VFX errors as canon); that way we can clearly show what we do know while making it clear that there isn't hard evidence that that's all there is. As a precedent for this, I would refer to the various starship class articles where we have a top speed listed as "Warp x (observed)". -Mdettweiler 18:59, January 19, 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and one more thing: about the VFX errors, those would definitely be worth a mention in a bginfo box somewhere, though they'd still be factored into the total count. -Mdettweiler 19:00, January 19, 2010 (UTC)

I also think it is important to note VFX errors in bg when there is a citable statement from someone from the production staff. In the Intrepid-class case there isn't. However D'deridex-class article would be a good precedence for this case, there is a bginfo box that details what weaponry Andrew Probert had designed for the Romulan Warbird. While the articles in-universe text talks about what the VFX-people have given to the ship in various episodes. --Pseudohuman 20:15, January 19, 2010 (UTC)

Okay this argument is getting really old really fast. There are 13 visual arrays on the Intrepid model. Everyone can agree with that. There have been additional phaser beams coming from random spots on the model in a few episodes, yes. The fact is I'm not alone in thinking they're VFX errors, mainly because of Voyager's track record on continuity in later seasons. Lets just go with the "at least 13" statement and note the supposed errors in the background section and be done. If it were up to me I wouldn't even note those errors at all. Pseudohuman neither one of us is going to get what we want in this one so can we please just let this die already? --Nero210 02:35, January 20, 2010 (UTC)

Nobody's disputing that they're VFX errors. However, the real point here is whether or not we're going to count the VFX errors as canon. Given Memory Alpha's policy, which treats all visual evidence as canon (regardless of the subjectively-surmised "intent" of the producers), we should count these as "at least 15", with a mention of the VFX errors in a bginfo box, and leave it up to the individual reader to interpret it however they like. Our job is not to interpret what's on screen for our readers, but rather present them with what's visible, and let them enjoy it however they like. What can be simpler than that? :-) -Mdettweiler 04:54, January 20, 2010 (UTC)

Yes, we all agree that Rick Sternbach designed the Intrepid with 13 phaser arrays. And I would say about 50% if not more of all beam/torpedo/tractorbeam etc. effects in any series or movie in any model of any species come from places the modelmakers didn't design them to come from. It may be an VFX error in that sense, but it is not a canonical continuity error. --Pseudohuman 14:38, January 20, 2010 (UTC)

I really don't give a rats ass anymore talking to you people is like talking to a brick wall so do whatever. --Nero210 16:38, January 20, 2010 (UTC)

So, I removed the numbers from the sidebar, and purpose we add this to the section in question, or something close to it:

The Intrepid-class model only has 13 discernable phaser arrays on it, leaving the phaser emitter locations seen in "Think Tank" and "Unimatrix Zero" disputed.

If there aren't any objections to the wording, I'll add this to the article and remove the PNA notice. - Archduk3 08:40, January 30, 2010 (UTC)

Umm. I would suggest we add this citable thing. The section currently has this bgnote:

How about this, as I feel that the bg note should note that there is a disagreement:

The Intrepid-class model only has 13 discernable phaser arrays with the large array strips being the same type-10 phaser arrays used by Galaxy-class starships, according to Rick Sternbach. This leaves the phaser emitter locations seen in "Think Tank" and "Unimatrix Zero" disputed.

I left out the part about the 13 being the only phaser armament, as we have seen phasers come from torpedo tubes before, and we shouldn't state something as a fact without a cite, even if we know it to be true. - Archduk3 21:20, January 30, 2010 (UTC)

Changed the bgnote, I'll leave the pna notice until the torpedo number is decided upon, since it seems that is "wrong" too. :) - Archduk3 00:18, February 2, 2010 (UTC)

Add "Dragon's Teeth" to the episodes listed, as it showed one time appearances of phasers from all over the hull, and that'd be cool with me. I hate Voyager's lack of attention to detail... --Nero210 21:48, February 2, 2010 (UTC)

Actually two phaser emiters in the aft torpedo launchers ( seen fireing from ) are visible in two episodes, "Dragon's Teeth" and Prophecy. So that emiters are definitely a canon.--GREENEYA 05:59, March 13, 2010 (UTC)

The Intrepid-class model only has 13 discernable phaser arrays with the large array strips being the same type-10 phaser arrays used by Galaxy-class starships, according to Rick Sternbach. This leaves the phaser emitter locations seen in "Think Tank" and "Unimatrix Zero" disputed.

this text is not necessary. Its only a speculation. Canon is only what we see on screen.
Also to people saying these are VFX error need to understand it is not an error. It is just an error as a "fan opinion".
Also in dialog on the show its never stated how many phaser arrays and torpedo tubes intrepid class have.
[7] Clip from episode 7-14 Prophecy, phaser emitters in the aft torpedo launcher ( visible on 1:06-1:08 ).
– The preceding unsigned comment was added byGREENEYA (talk • contribs).

I'll make this easy, since you said it yourself: It was "never stated how many phaser arrays and torpedo tubes" there were, so we're not not going to use a number! All further discussion on this subject is to take place on deck 78, since it's been done to death here. - Archduk3 19:41, March 12, 2010 (UTC)

Correct me if i'm wrong but canon is everything what is visible on screen ( on the show ). So then we need to count every phaser arrays, emitter, bank, and torpedo tube seen fireing fronn on screen.

Also on dialog is never statet that intrepid class have only 13 phaser array, then extra phaser emiter seen in show are not opposite to that.

Also i think is wrong to not use a number of phaser arrays and torpedo tubes in the article.

14 PHASER ARRAYS and two in the aft torpedo launcher (VOY: "Dragon's Teeth", "Prophecy"), one aft phaser bank located behind the second tractor beam emitter, in the aft section of deck 14 (VOY: "Think Tank")and an embedded emitter on the ventral surface of the ships right nacelle, (VOY: "Unimatrix Zero") need to be count becouse they are visible on screen, and so they are canon also.

I think it is worth noting in the article (in a bg note) that Sternbach designed the Voyager model with only 13 arrays in mind. This is an important bg-fact and the basis for the popular "VFX-error opinion". I would not name a number of how many canonical emitters we have seen, as presumably there are even more of them: all the torpedo launchers propably have phaser banks. Also there is usually a symmetry in the weapons design so i would assume that also the other nacelle has an embedded emitter. I think it's better to just list what has been seen and in what episodes and leave it at that. --Pseudohuman 06:43, March 13, 2010 (UTC)

Straight out of my head Pseudohuman, more or less. :) - Archduk3 06:46, March 13, 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. For the canon is not importent what Sternbach is desingned or imagined, or not imagined. That is not the canon.
Only what is visible in the show, on the screen is CANON. If they are in the show decided to change orginal Sternbach idea, That mean that number of 13 phaser array is not the canon.

Also this text The Intrepid-class model only has 13 discernable phaser arrays with the large array strips being the same type-10 phaser arrays used by Galaxy-class starships, according to Rick Sternbach. This leaves the phaser emitter locations seen in "Think Tank" and "Unimatrix Zero" disputed. We neesd to remove that text and replace whit this one According to Rick Sternbach, the large array strips are the same type-10 phaser arrays used by the Galaxy-class starships, Becouse that text actualy saying that 13 phaser array is the real number, and that addition phaser emiters seen on screen are mistakes, and reader will conclude that while reading that text. So if we decided to not use the numbers, we need to remove that part of the text also.

For me canon is number of phaser array, emiters seen in the show ( fireing from ),.--GREENEYA 12:53, March 13, 2010 (UTC)

The article itself is not saying that phasers seen firing in the show are wrong. What's seen on screen is canon. The text in the bg box is not canon, that's why it's in a background box. There's nothing wrong with the wording of it, since there are only 13 discernible phaser strips, and some fans do dispute any number over 13. That's why we don't use a number at all in the article. - Archduk3 14:12, March 13, 2010 (UTC)

some fans dispute everything in the canon and show. That's not important.
Actualy there are 14 discernible phaser strips on the model. You forgot one smaller phaser array extended behind the bridge (seen fireing in VOY: "Resolutions").

If everything seen on screen is canon. Why we dont use numbers?
That has no sence for me.

If everything on screen is canon then we need to use the number, despite some fans dispute that ( but they thinking is fandom not canon )--GREENEYA 14:30, March 13, 2010 (UTC)

Actually it is 13, you can see them on the CGI images seen here. As for why we don't use a number, most of the phasers seen beyond the original 13 are really only seen once, which means they could just be VFX errors. Since we don't have a cite either way, we just list where we have seen phasers firing from, and note that there is a dispute about the total number. - Archduk3 16:07, March 13, 2010 (UTC)

Actualy 14 phaser array is visible also behind the bridge. two phaser emiters in the aft torpedo launchers ( seen fireing from ) are visible in at least two episodes, "Dragon's Teeth" and Prophecy. So that emiters are definitely a canon.

That note there is a dispute about the total number is not necessary. Because, politic on this site said ''' canon is everything visible on screen'''. So if we see additional phaseer emiters on screen, thats canon, and that then is not mater of dispute.

It's not important whay are there in the show, its important that they are there.

also i dont belive in VFX errors, special effects are to expensive, for making mistakes. --GREENEYA 23:44, March 13, 2010 (UTC)

In that case, 13 is canon. As is 14. As is 15. In different episodes, we've seen each of those numbers. And clearly. -- sulfur 23:57, March 13, 2010 (UTC)

That not true. Because in dialog is never said how many phaser array or emitters intrepid class had. In that case number 13 is not canon, because that number is not valid for the show. --GREENEYA 00:02, March 14, 2010 (UTC)

Which is why we don't use a number......as has been told to you several times.....so what is the point of this discussion?--31dot 00:05, March 14, 2010 (UTC)

Because I disagree with that decision to don't use a number ( because that decision is against the rule that everything visible on the screen is canon, and we all now how to count......everything what we saw on the screen ). Also I disagree whit this sentence in the article -This leaves the phaser emitter locations seen in "Think Tank" and "Unimatrix Zero" disputed
-. Because if everything visible on the screen is canon, that means.... ( if we see adittional phaser emitters ) It's not mater for dispute. They are there, they are visible, and that's canon.--GREENEYA 00:33, March 14, 2010 (UTC)

And yes, there were 14 seen in Think Tank. A different 14 seen in Unimatrix Zero. That's the problem. The inconsistency of the effects. That's why there are problems. That's why this whole shit-storm started. 13 emitters were seen in 90% of the episodes. 14 were seen in a couple. 15 in one. And again, those 14 were a different 14 in each of those two episodes.

Also -- keep your indenting consistent in the conversation. You don't indent in this one here. -- sulfur 01:30, March 14, 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any problem in that. In "Resolutions" we seen 14. phaser emitter, in "Dragon's Teeth" and "Prophecy" we seen 15. and 16 phaser emitters. In "Think Tank" we seen 17. phaser emitter. In "Unimatrix Zero" we seen 18. phaser emitter.

That's total of 14 phaser arrays and at least 4 phaser banks. They are there in every episode, we must assume that. They are only seen fireing from in ,"Resolutions", "Dragon's Teeth", "Prophecy", "Think Tank", "Unimatrix Zero", but that doesn't mean that they are not there in every episode from beginning.

I do not see any inconsistency in that.

14. phaser array ( seen fireing from in "Resolutions" ) is visible in every episode of the show. [8], marked green in picture.

Phaser emitters 15. and 16. are inside the torpedo tubes. They are there from beginnig, but only used in two episode ( at least ).

Phasser emitter 17. is used only in "Think Tank", but he is always there.

Where is the problem? I do not see any problem. --GREENEYA 17:15, March 14, 2010 (UTC)

Indenting. Be consistent. That means you do not indent anything you add to this part of the discussion. Nothing.

Now, your addition... We see 14, 15, 16, 17, and 18. Yes, point being... we see lots coming from different places. Ergo, we avoid listing a precise number (especially considering some of those are seen once and from odd places). We also make a point of listing what the model maker says (as background information) was intended and created for the model itself. At that point, we leave things as they are and let the reader(s) draw their own conclusions.

Is that really all that difficult to understand? -- sulfur 17:38, March 14, 2010 (UTC)

Why do you(greenaye) state that some of these extra emitters were "always there"? For all we know, the Voyager crew created those special and removed them afterwards(which, again, is why we do not state a specific number).

I move to close this discussion, as you keep restating the same arguments over and over.31dot 17:58, March 14, 2010 (UTC)

Because I have right arguments. background information are not canon, only what we see on screen is canon.
Producers, writers, directors are people who make canon, they are free to change orginal idea of Sternbach, and canonize something totaly different.
In this case more pahaser emitters than 13.

I'ts not important why something is on the screen, or how is something on the screen, Its only important that is visible on the screen, so its happened in that universe.

This text in the article red This leaves the phaser emitter locations seen in "Think Tank" and "Unimatrix Zero" disputed is not objective.
So i ask can i remove that part of the text?
Because that part of the text is contradict to the rule that everything visible on the screen is canon So its visible on the screen, its canon then......and it's not matter of dispute ( can not be matter of dispute ).--GREENEYA 22:00, March 14, 2010 (UTC)

And now you've completely started missing the mark.

Let me write this in very simple language for the final time:

The model maker stated that the model was built with 13 phasers. This is background information.

The VFX showed almost 20 different locations that phasers were fired from, those 13 on the model, and a random smattering of single shots that were done once.

Since those one-off shots came from random locations around the hull, what's to say that there aren't a bunch more phasers that we didn't get to see fire? What's to say that those were not VFX mistakes?

To go with that, behind the scenes people have stated that (at least) one of those was a VFX error that was not caught in time.

So, we've see a shitload of phasers on this ship from random places. Why do we require a hard number listed? Why not just list "at least X" and be done with it?

Since this conversation began, nobody is putting forward that we should write 13 as the number of phasers in canon. Nobody. Everybody (but you) is suggesting that we list simply what was seen in various episodes.

Let me write this in very simple language. Statement of the model maker are not canon, even more if they are contradict with what is visible on the screen.

Even if something is VFX error, its visible on the screen and it's canonized now.

But for me number its not problem, for me problem is this text "This leaves the phaser emitter locations seen in "Think Tank" and "Unimatrix Zero" disputed"--GREENEYA 22:44, March 14, 2010 (UTC)

And yet restating your "right arguments" has not persuaded a single person to agree with you.........the reasons why the article is the way it is have been explained to you. No one has said that the mistakes are not canon, but that does not mean they can be stated as fact when (as Sulfur said) there could be other hidden phasers, they could be unique to Voyager, they could have been removed, etcetera etcetera.

That's also my last word unless you have some sort of radically different argument, which I see no evidence of.--31dot 22:46, March 14, 2010 (UTC)

I agree with greeneya, it is unnecessary to have the text about locations being "disputed", as that refers to fan dispute. The difference in Sternbach's design and onscreen effects is selfevident without the sentence. Any reader can make up his or her own mind on how to take the facts. To me, its okay if the sidebar says "At least 18" but it would be redundant. --Pseudohuman 23:07, March 14, 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Pseudohuman. If you add the word "AT LEAST" in the article, that mean that can be more hidden emitters.

But real problem is this text "This leaves the phaser emitter locations seen in "Think Tank" and "Unimatrix Zero" . That sentence is not necessary ( and its controversial ) , you can delete that ( from the article ) and simply add "THAT ADDITIONAL PHASER EMITTER LOCATIONS SEEN IN "Think Tank" and "Unimatrix Zero" could be unique to USS Voyager"--GREENEYA 23:20, March 14, 2010 (UTC)

2: Stop using colours in your text. I mean, seriously, do you expect green and red to convince people?

3: The current text reads as follows:

The Intrepid-class model only has 13 discernible phaser arrays with the large array strips being the same type-10 phaser arrays used by Galaxy-class starships, according to Rick Sternbach. Other phaser emitter locations were seen in "Think Tank", "Unimatrix Zero", "Prophecy", "Resolutions", and "Dragon's Teeth".

There is no question of dispute. There is a simple laying out of facts stating that the model has 13. Other locations were seen in these X episodes. Nothing else need be stated. That seems an acceptable compromise to me. -- sulfur 23:31, March 14, 2010 (UTC)

Text need to be change to this

"The Intrepid-class model only has 13 discernible phaser arrays with the large array strips being the same type-10 phaser arrays used by Galaxy-class starships, according to Rick Sternbach. That additional phaser emmiter locations seen in "Think Tank", "Unimatrix Zero", "Prophecy", "Resolutions", and "Dragon's Teeth" could be unique to USS Voyager"
--GREENEYA 23:38, March 14, 2010 (UTC)

Everyone, Lets just all agree that there are 13 VISIBLE phaser emitters. Put 13 and get this argument finished. 13 OK! --Admiralalexmann 19:13, September 15, 2010 (UTC)

We actually reached a perfectly good compromise and resolution on this nightmare back in march and had the argument finished. The article now has the "Only 13 discernible arrays on the model" bit and that the ship is armed with phaser arrays on the infobox like on many other ship class articles the infobox doesnt list any numbers, only the types of weapons that are available. And that was what we all just agreed with. --Pseudohuman 20:28, September 15, 2010 (UTC)

Infobox says 344 m, prose in Decks section says 343 meters. I started to look back in the history to see if one was changed and saw 345 m in the infobox.

I think only the 257 rooms is from Scientific Method: "That's one room down, 256 to go." The 700,000 tons is from Phage. If the 344 m is only from the Voyager Tech Manual (by Sternbach & Okuda but unpublished--I found it on the net), should it go in {{bginfo}}, and should it stay in the infobox? Setacourse 16:01, December 7, 2009 (UTC)

None of the numbers are canon as far as I know, but the only official one is definitely 1130 feet (344 meters) - not 343 or 345. See herewbm. I only corrected the metric conversion, since I wasn't sure whether the number was actually canon (I didn't watch Voyager that much). – NotOfTheBody 18:11, December 7, 2009 (UTC)

BGinfo does not go in the info box, since it isn't canon, and neither is the drexfiles info (also bginfo); unless it comes from on screen, it doesn't count. The length may have been mentioned in "Relativity", though I'm not sure. If we do find it though, it should be cited somewhere in the article proper. - Archduk3:talk 01:32, December 8, 2009 (UTC)

this number is not canon. In VOY: "Parallax" the Voyager must pass a tight rupture and Kim stated "The rupture's now one hundred twenty metres in diameter. That leaves us with less than two metres clearance on either side.". this suggest a width of 116m. calculated in the ratio of the ship model, it should have a length of ~299m.--Shisma

Currently, this page has 11 incite tags on it, covering most of the information in the article. I'm going to leave this note here for a few days before adding a Pna-inaccurate tag to the top so some of these can be address before then. - Archduk3 20:44, March 12, 2010 (UTC)

Do we actually know the information is inaccurate? It would seem to me pna-cite would be more applicable. --OuroborosCobratalk 20:55, March 12, 2010 (UTC)

The reason I would use inaccurate over cite is first the unresolved torpedo issue, not that it seems to be as "big" a deal as the phasers. Second, a lot of these sections seem to blend speculation and fact in a way that would almost require a complete rewrite to remove it. If it was just a sentence or two that need to be cited, I would use cite, but it's entire paragraphs, which pushes it into "may be inaccurate" territory for me. - Archduk3 02:43, March 13, 2010 (UTC)

I'd support a complete re-write, as long as the tactical systems are ambiguous since there is major dispute over them and the fact that they are not well defined/consistent in canon anyways (thank you Voyager writing staff/producers). --Nero210 07:02, April 10, 2010 (UTC)

The phaser and torpedo sections are almost the only parts of this article that have enough citations. If there is a rewrite in the works, those two sections shouldn't be part of it, for the very reasons already mentioned. - Archduk3 10:24, April 11, 2010 (UTC)

Does anyone know the max. no of passengers? I was wondering because on VOY: "Prophecy", Voyager was holding 207 Klingons along with the 150 odd crew members, which seems like a lot to me.--Icarusmatrix 18:17, May 18, 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe the exact maximum was stated in canon, though 207 Klingons + ~150 crew was definitely pushing the limits of comfort as seen in the episode (many of the crew had to double up on quarters, etc.) Nonetheless, it was definitely sustainable in terms of how many people the ship can feed and provide life support for. -Mdettweiler 21:36, May 18, 2010 (UTC)

It is mentioned in some (TNG?) episodes that, on war footing, crew quarters of other Federation ships can be fitted with bunks and double to quadruple the number of passengers; it would seem coherent that Voyager would have similar capabilities, at least as far as life support systems are concerned. It can be seen as canon, however, that an Intrepid-class has a normal crew complement of around 150 with emergency capacity for at least 350. 85.170.112.183 19:22, November 9, 2010 (UTC)Mitch074

This is probably a stupid question but what the hell why not ask it and get a straight answer; a lot of TNG/DS9 ships have information taken from the tech manuals listed in their background sections. Voyager was supposed to get a tech manual too, but it was never published. Never the less, the pages can be found on the Internet (Google "Voyager Technical Manual", it's not difficult to find). Would we be able to incorporate that tech manuals information into the background section the way we do with the TNG/DS9 tech manuals? I realize this one was never published but the pages were still written by Rick Sternbach and Mike Okuda, so they must still have some background validity...thoughts? --Nero210 06:40, August 16, 2010 (UTC)

In the 37s episode it is mentioned that they had 152 people on board (as crew).

This is not even counting Seven and the other drones that came in a few seasons later.

Just because the crew complement was 141 when they started out, doesnt mean that it was the capacity of the intrepid.

However, if you are going by crew complement alone (i.e. how many members there are currently on board regardless of capacity) then it was explicitly stated 152 in the episode The 37's (episode).

Finally, when you put approximately (which is what is currently the case) before the number, then 150 is again the right number, and no need to put in there an exact number to the last digit.

As a side note, all tech manuals as well as StarTrek.com have put in there 150, or 150-200. Simply because in the Caretaker they happened to have only 141 - given the nature of their mission - doesnt meant that the intrepid has a crew complement/capacity of 141 only. Remember Janeway stated their short mission did not call for a counselor on board, who - last time i checked - is a crew member needing space on the ship. From an encyclopedic point of view it would be ignorant of us to just disregard these things and take it all out of context. This is a class of a starship we are talking about - so you cant go only by what USS Voyager's "initial crew complement" was. – Distantlycharmed 18:01, September 13, 2010 (UTC)

There is no such thing as "crew capacity" there is only what ever is the assigned crew complement. Every ship has the capacity to carry tens of times this complement when the need arises. Nobody here thinks the crews of 26 or 35 for the Miranda-class are the maximum capacities of those ships, but they are the assigned ammount of crew, and that's the precedence of what we note in the infobox. "Caretaker" was the only possible time when we could of have had an accurate statement on what the standard operating crew for an Intrepid-class vessel would be. So we must go with 141. And you are right, we shouldn't disregard any of those facts. They are in fact wery prominently featured in the perfectly right place where they should be: The USS Voyager article, where it is currently stated: Voyager was launched with a crew compliment of 141. Her initial short assignment did not call for a counselor to be assigned. With the addition of the Maquis along with Neelix and Kes the crew compliment rose to 152 by end of Voyager's first year in the Delta Quadrant. --Pseudohuman 18:58, September 13, 2010 (UTC)

Just because they happen to need only 141 people for that particular mission doesnt mean the crew complement of an intrepid class starship is 141. It's like getting on a Greyhound bus that can hold up to 100 people (because that is how it was engineered), but because on that day only 35 boarded, say in an encyclopedic article, that the passenger complement of Greyhound buses is 35. This is exactly what you are proposing here and that is wrong. Numerous other sources and common sense support that the number is around 150 (hence the approximately) - if not higher. But we here are to just say 141 because that is the number of people they decided to put on the ship that particular day.

If anything, the note needs to be changed to "initial crew complement" at which point the 141 would be acceptable. – Distantlycharmed 20:21, September 13, 2010 (UTC)

The crew of approximately 150 was a completely random accidental ammount of people as the events of the Voyager series prove and indicate. 141 is the only known canonical intentional complement of crew assigned to an Intrepid-class starship. --Pseudohuman 21:08, September 13, 2010 (UTC)

It was an initial crew complement of the USS Voyager for a particular mission. There is no canonical evidence anywhere that 141 is the crew complement of intrepid class starships. The 1 at the end of 140 should tip you off and indicate that the number was arrived at based on the needs of Voyager's mission at that time. Had they put the counselor on board, it would have been 142 and who knows what other types of crew and staff were excluded for that particular mission to the Badlands. We cant just disregard that. And frankly, 150 and 141 are not that far off, especially given that modifier of approximately (which means give or take a few). There is nothing made up, far fetched and mis-representative of saying that intrepid class starships have a crew complement of approx 150 (especially if that info is supported by various other sources). Holding on to that 141, against better judgment and evidence, is ridiculous. We dont have to be anal retentive with these things. – Distantlycharmed 21:34, September 13, 2010 (UTC)

With respect, the line from "Caretaker" seems to be about the standard for Intrepid class starships:

She's listing the specifications of Voyager and Intrepid class. That unusual conditions in the Delta Quadrant forced deviation from this only changes the number carried on Voyager, not the design complement of the Intrepid class. If we want to list either in the text, or in the infobox for the USS Voyager article that Voyager carried more, by all means do so, but the crew complement infobox here should list the class standard. That was stated to be 141. --OuroborosCobratalk 21:57, September 13, 2010 (UTC)

Then the "approx" needs to be removed from the infobox. Since we are sure it is supposedly 141, no need to say approx 140. And i understand what she said up there, but my point was that it was mission specific, like "We are going to get the Val Jean in the Badlands, its a short and sweet mission, so this beauty you see right now Tom has a crew complement of 141." Anyway, the tech manual, which I understand is not used as a source, says 150, so does star trek.com. Well it's nice to see we can forgo common sense when convenient. – Distantlycharmed 22:39, September 13, 2010 (UTC)

Common sense tells me that when she says "fifteen decks," she doesn't mean that it only has fifteen for this mission, and then they go back to drydock and have a sixteenth added. In fact, everything she listed there other than crew compliment would be virtually impossible to change from mission to mission. Given that, why should we assume that she decided to break with giving ship technical specifications, and instead give mission specifications? --OuroborosCobratalk 22:58, September 13, 2010 (UTC)

Also, StarTrek.com does not list a crew compliment for the Intrepid class, as far as I can see. --OuroborosCobratalk 23:01, September 13, 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Cobra. We can only go by what Stadi said.--31dot 01:32, September 14, 2010 (UTC)

Maybe it wasnt star trek.com. I might have mistaken that with another source I looked at, I have to look again (not that it would matter, right?). Also, decks are a set number. They are part of the skeletal structure so to say. Common sense wise, one would not expect that to change, but crew numbers can change. Taking Stadi's mentioning of the crew complement, as she approaches the ship she will be serving on and whose crew she has very likely been briefed on, as meaning the crew complement of Intrepid class starships is a stretch. – Distantlycharmed 05:23, September 14, 2010 (UTC)

Why not use the best of both worlds here, and use something that could be reasonably acceptable, as they started out with 141, and mentioned to not have all intended crewmembers, in addition to taking on the Maquis, seemingly without any space issues (extra quarters aside), why not say something like "Approx 140-150". This to me, allows the statement of what was said in the pilot episode (about 140), with the missing crewmen (thereby allowing additional people to be on board as standard) which was indicated to be the plan (and speculation aside, it'd seem likely a counselor wasn't all they were missing). --Terran Officer 06:37, September 14, 2010 (UTC)

I think many of us here think that 141 is clearly the stated regulation standard design ammount of crew for the Intrepid-class. --Pseudohuman 07:20, September 14, 2010 (UTC)

Yes, crew numbers can change(and they did) but not the crew complement- this is what the ship was designed for. They can have more crew or less crew, but what the ship was designed for does not change. I would oppose listing "about 140", as we have an exact figure- 141. No need for an "about". Any missing personnel are irrelevant to the design capacity- a counselor, for example, is not neccesary for the functioning of the ship.--31dot 08:52, September 14, 2010 (UTC)

Exactly Terran Officer. I would even say that instead of writing 140 to 150, an "approx. 150" would be more eloquent, but the former will do too. @ 31dot: Missing personnel are not irrelevant. We are talking about the crew complement of an intrepid class starship - that doesnt change based on no-shows. This particular mission did not call for a counselor, that doesnt mean that there is no place for her on this type of starship. Had the counselor been on, Stadi would have said 142. Your number of 141 would be wrong. Also, if you want to go by what is essential to run the ship, then you might as well just list 100, because that is what Chakotay said was the minimum number of people needed to run Voyager. Anyway, common sense and evidence support that the number is around 150 (hence the approximately) - if not higher. But we here are to just say 141 because that is the number of people they decided to put on the ship that particular day. It's ridiculous. Stadi's words are being taken out of context and rigidly applied here, disregarding everything we have seen and know that supports the "approx 150" number. The 141 is absolutely arbitrary and not based on any design specifications for intrepids. (the tech manual being an unofficial source, but nonetheless a source). For that mission they needed 141. That's all.

Now if you want to say in the info box "initial crew complement: 141" then that's fine, but 141 for all intrepid class starships based on Voyager's personnel needs during a specific mission, is wrong. You would basically be giving readers false information, because you are mistaking crew complement of a ship class with the actual number of people who were present on the ship that particular point in time. Probably half a dozen crew members were not on this mission to the Badlands because of the short assignment etc. ; Distantlycharmed 17:25, September 14, 2010 (UTC)

Well, we're clearly in the minority, but I agree with everything DC just said. 141 just happened to be the number of people on the ship at the time. There's no reason to generalize that to all Intrepid-class ships. There has been much more onscreen dialogue to indicate that the number is aprox. 150. Voyager carried a crew of aprox. 150 for most of her journey with no seeming space issues. Put another way, Voyager launched with a crew of 141, but what about the Bellerophon? Are we to assume that, just because Voyager launched with 141, that the Bellerophon also launched with exactly 141 crewmembers aboard? Of course not, because that would be supposition. That's my opinion, for whatever its worth. -Angry Future Romulan 18:52, September 14, 2010 (UTC)

I am really puzzled by the attempts to explain the 141 number away, when we have a clear, unequivocal statement of the crew complement. Nothing else really needs to be said. I will say again- there is a difference between the actual crew of the ship and the number of people it was designed to be operated by.
The number of people "essential" to running the ship is not necessarily the crew complement- people who normally do only one job could have multiple jobs if the crew was reduced below the designed crew complement. It is claimed by DC that Stadi's words are being taken out of context but it is DC applying context to her words that isn't there by assuming she was not talking about the designed crew complement.--31dot 20:22, September 14, 2010 (UTC)

Did you read at all what Blair just said about the Bellerophon? Or anything else for that matter? I am puzzled at how you can just ignore a myriad of other evidence (one of which is the tech manual that can be used as supporting evidence or to at least strengthen a claim) and just rigidly and incessantly hold on to Stadi's words as the only accurate assessment pertaining to crew complement of Intrepid class starships. The 141 was obviously pertaining to that particular mission and not to this class of starships. You cannot use 141 as Intrepid class crew compliment when the addition of a counselor, as one example, would have lead it to be 142. And you bet that they would have had a counselor on board, had their mission not been this short (as Janeway said). Just because it was uttered in the context of Voyager's mission, 141 is not automatically correct. It would be flat out ignorant of us to say that the crew complement of intrepid class starships is 141, when that number clearly applied to the Voyager before it left DS9. I am also not taking anything Stadi says out of context; on the contrary, I see it in within the context she is saying it, but by ignoring everything else said and seen and done in the series, you fail to see the context with which she says that. – Distantlycharmed 21:04, September 14, 2010 (UTC)

Based on Stadis statement I for one would assume that the Intrepid and Bellerophon are operating with a crew of 141. I dont see any substantial evidence to suggest they have any more or any less, as it seems to me 141 is the standard design ammount of crew rotated on this class based on the statement. I would also assume a crew of 141 is again assigned to Voyager after it had returned to Earth. Janeway does say in "The Cloud": "I wish we had a counselor on board, but the nature of our mission didn't require one." I'm not seeing so called clear evidence in that statement that counselors are even a part of the normal crew complement on these scout ships. --Pseudohuman 05:46, September 15, 2010 (UTC)

Well, it would be wrong to assume that the Bellerophon has a crew compliment of 141. That is guessing and there is a reason that section is left blank in the Bellerophon article. If you were to fill it with 141, it would be deleted right away, and correctly so. Also, Janeway said that the nature of their mission didnt require one. It was a short assignment to the Badlands to capture a Maquis raider. That's all. So they didnt need a counselor for this particular mission. That is all one can get out of her statement, and not something like "oh what she really meant was that intrepid class starships dont need counselors on board". If you want to put in "initial crew complement: 141" in the infobox, that would be a more accurate representation. And remember, the info box currently states approx: 150 - which means give or take a few. We are not talking orders of magnitude difference here, and the tech manuals support that. – Distantlycharmed 17:37, September 15, 2010 (UTC)

Like on many other occasions we will never reach a compromise on how to interpret the facts, so I propose we stop trying and just reach a compromise on the presentation. I suggest we leave out the crew number from the infobox completely and add this following text to the article as an intro to the "Crew support systems" section:

Can we go with that and leave this nightmare behind? That way all the info will be in the article without any misinterpretations one way or the other on the subject. --Pseudohuman 20:47, September 15, 2010 (UTC)

I guess I could live with that if there was no other choice, but I don't see the need to leave out a clear, unequivocal statement of the crew complement. A counselor is not neccesary for the technical operation of the ship(which is also said in canon) so I think it is unneccesary to make any statements about it. I also think that if you leave it out, it will just get readded in the future and we will have this discussion again.--31dot 21:27, September 15, 2010 (UTC)

The more I think about it, the more I think we should just take it out. What does "crew compliment" even mean for a class of ships? We know that people can be transferred, on temporary assignment, etc. If the Constitution-class Enterprise had 420 people on it at one time, but at the same time the Lexington had 421 people on it, what does that mean for the crew compliment of Constitution-class ships? It seems kinda meaningless for me, and taking it out would certainly end the debate. My opinion, for what its worth. -Angry Future Romulan 21:33, September 15, 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion, this lengthy discussion only makes explicit two points of contention that have already been discussed (several times) in the past:

What info that we gather from a specific ship belongs on the class article?

What info should be presented in the sidebar?

Apparently, we don't know if 141, or 150, or whatever number, is the standard crew complement of the whole class - so we shouldn't pretend that we do! And, if we're unsure about some information, the sidebar is the last place where this info should be located - the sidebar should be a place for precise facts, not assumptions. -- Cid Highwind 21:42, September 15, 2010 (UTC)

Good point Cid, and I agree with just leaving it out of the sidebar. Blair makes a very good point about crew complement and class of starships. I think pseudohuman's proposal is acceptable. I dont think we do need to mention the counselor though, as 31dot suggested. "The initial crew complement of the intrepid class starship USS Voyager was 141 when it was launched in 2371. Throughout its journey, Voyager's crew expanded to approximately 150" or something like that. – Distantlycharmed 21:55, September 15, 2010 (UTC)

the Intrepid class shields are of multi-phasic and multi-spectrum type allowing the ship to survive inside a binary pulsar for a few minutes and even a planetary explosion at short range,this kind of shielding is superior to earlier designs. (Flashback,Live fast and prosper,Scientific method,Think tank)

this should be added since Voyagers most powerful tactical advantage was its advanced shields. – The preceding unsigned comment was added by89.249.210.124 (talk).

In the Galaxy class section,they put 12/14 phaser arrays,why not the same for the Intrepid? even tho its in dispute... just put 13/15 phaser arrays and 4/5 photon torpedo launchers compatible with Quantum etc...

and why not put the Type of the ship as Explorer?? it fulfilled the same role as the galaxy class. – The preceding unsigned comment was added by89.249.210.124 (talk).

Please sign your posts with ~~~~ or clicking the Signature button. I would suggest you read the long discussion above as to why we don't include a number, but to summarize I will quote it: "It was "never stated how many phaser arrays and torpedo tubes" there were, so we're not not going to use a number!" --31dot 21:35, February 27, 2012 (UTC)

i was reading it right now...even tho it was not stated we can count them on the model and take into consideration the on screen evidence,and put both. – The preceding unsigned comment was added by89.249.210.124 (talk).

Sign your posts, please. If you continue to read the discussion, you will see that counting them is not a simple a proposition as it might sound. :) --31dot 21:50, February 27, 2012 (UTC)

ok,but why in the Galaxy class section there is 12/14 phaser arrays while on screen evidence (conundrum) Worf said a Galaxy class has 10??!! is that taking into consideration visual effects? or in the Sovereign class section they never said in any of the movies that she posses 16 arrays... it clearly contradicts what is done in the Intrepid section since you just have to count them on the model to give these numbers.--89.249.210.124 22:04, February 27, 2012 (UTC)

I can't at present speak to other articles; I can only look above and see why it wasn't done here.--31dot 22:15, February 27, 2012 (UTC)

i noticed in the Galaxy class section that,a Galaxy class is an Explorer the Defiant an escort based on onscreen evidence,so why not add they type of the Intrepid in the section?

just to give you an idea,the thaw Tom Paris stated that voyager was a vessel built for combat performance.
in someone to watch over me it was stated that voyager is a ship designed for long term exploration.

I have a recollection that the Intrepid-class was designed to be a scout ship class... though memory beta says cruiser... those canonical references seem a bit vague to me, but the article could have a bg-note about the various designations and descriptions that have been applied to the ship. the Intrepid variants at least are designated as medium and light cruisers in DS9TM... --Pseudohuman 22:23, June 24, 2012 (UTC)

umm...

1-the Intrepid was never mentioned as a scout ship on screen like never.

2-canonical reference are not vague lol they are the ultimate authority,fan fiction and speculation like Intrepid is a scout cause we hate voyager are vague,since there is a lot of smaller weaker ships for the federation to use as scouts.simple logic.

3-the TM is clearly not canon,and memory alpha acknowledges that.

4- so to recap based on what is said on screen the Intrepid is a Long range combat/Explorer.– The preceding unsigned comment was added by141.138.182.12 (talk).

The canon references might be "the ultimate authority", but they are still vague. Information from the Technical Manuals can be mentioned as Background information. 31dot (talk) 21:27, June 26, 2012 (UTC)

Happy New Year everyone. I'm not trying to ruffle feathers, I'm just curious because in "Caretaker", the novelization and I think the script as well, (specfically Stadi) mentioned Voyager as a scout ship. Paris also mentioned it as being built for combat performance and since it is in Admiral Patterson's words "quick and smart", I'm a bit skeptical it would be an Explorer-type ship like the Galaxy- and Ambassador-classes. I'm not sure, it doesn't really matter. It's certainly not built for "deep-space tactical assignments" like the Prometheus or an escort like the Defiant. I think it would be classified as a light cruiser or 'light' Explorer. 74.69.11.229 15:05, January 1, 2013 (UTC)

Novelization isn't canon. The script can be used as BG info for bits that didn't get into the final aired episode. Anything beyond that is speculation. -- sulfur (talk) 15:29, January 1, 2013 (UTC)

Is the Pna-inaccurate tag still required? It has been on this article for a while I believe --BorgKnight (talk) 16:52, May 14, 2013 (UTC)

The number of incite tags has been greatly reduced, and the article is more stable now, so I would say it could be removed, though I haven't read the entire article in awhile. - Archduk3 20:57, May 14, 2013 (UTC)

Only two incite tags remain, one in the Recreational facilities section and another under Captains Quarters. Otherwise the article seems grand on a read through. -BorgKnight (talk) 00:29, May 15, 2013 (UTC)

The stuff about the differences in the Intrepid-class holodecks does not seem to be canon. "Phage" does not say anything about holograms being able to work at a molecular level. Furthermore, matter is specifically not replicated, being only lights and forcefields. There's nothing about it being next-gen hologram tech or even more advanced at all. And, anyways, this all happens in Sickbay, not a holodeck.

The stuff after the Voyager cite isn't referenced at all, and seems to be someone's interpretation of why Voyager can keep the holodeck on even when running with restricted power. The only reference is to a TNG episode, which only tells you that the Enterprise-D had to shut off their holodecks to conserve power.

I really don't know where the data in that section came from. --trlkly 15:17, August 11, 2014 (UTC)

In S2E23 The Thaw, at the beginning of the episode, Tom Paris says "The ship was built for combat performance, Harry, not musical performance. Nobody figured we'd be taking any long trips." This merits a mention in the article - this indicates Voyager is a warship, and not an exploration ship. BrentNewland (talk) 04:39, March 18, 2015 (UTC)

One comment does not mean the ship was built as a warship; nor does being built to defend itself well mean it is a warship. 31dot (talk) 08:24, March 18, 2015 (UTC)